Supreme Court Agrees To Examine If Definition Of 'Wetland' In Wetland Conservation Rules 2017 Is Vague

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the definition of “wetland” under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, with the Court limiting its notice on the petition on the aspect of he alleged vagueness in the definition contained in Rule 2(g).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the 2017 Rules substantially diluted the protection available to wetlands by narrowing the definition, resulting in a large number of ecologically sensitive sites being excluded from regulatory safeguards.

“The definition has been diluted under the rules. 44 out of 99 sites go out of protection immediately,” Sankaranarayanan submitted.

He further contended that the impact was much wider, affecting wetlands across the country. “There are more than one lakh wetlands across the country. Every bird sanctuary loses its protection. This could not have been the meaning of this definition,” he argued, adding that the definition conflicted with two earlier Supreme Court judgments that had relied on the broader 2010 definition aligned with international convention standards.

According to the petitioners, the exclusionary portion of Rule 2(g) effectively strips protection from several water bodies by excluding river channels, paddy fields, human-made water bodies or tanks constructed for drinking water purposes, and structures created for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation.

Sankaranarayanan argued that the Court had earlier extended protection to nearly two lakh wetlands that had been identified, but the present rules undermine those safeguards.

He also pointed to implementation concerns, saying that the 2017 Rules create a lengthy identification and notification process requiring ground verification, inspection, demarcation and committee approval, while many States have failed to notify wetlands under the revised framework.

Justice Bagchi, however, observed that the mere fact that earlier judgments were based on the 2010 definition could not by itself prevent the government from framing a fresh definition.

“That judgment is based on the 2010 definition, which cannot be a ground for the government to not make a new definition,” Justice Bagchi observed.

At the same time, the bench expressed concern over the clarity of the provision. Justice Bagchi remarked that the Court's concern was whether the definition was too vague, particularly in assessing ecological impacts across different categories of water bodies.

“As to whether the ecological impact of a large man-made body of water and small water bodies can be equated,” the Court observed.

The bench ultimately clarified that its consideration at this stage would be confined to the issue of vagueness in the definition.

“We are limiting our notice to the vagueness of the definition,” the Court said.

The petition seeks a declaration that Rule 2(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 is ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Under Rule 2(g), a wetland is defined as an area of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with static or flowing water, including certain marine areas, while specifically excluding river channels, paddy fields, certain human-made water bodies, and structures created for specified utilitarian purposes.

Case :RAVINDRA SINHA Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 463/2026